Of Mice and Snakes ... and Tylenol -- (this is NOT a joke, it is NOT "The Onion")

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
If the mice all land on one side of the island, it's possible Guam may tip over.

I have to say that it's not as offensive as some of the remarks made about rape and pregnancy, but it's every bit as stupid.

"We don't anticipate that happening." - what a priceless response to that idiocy.
 

Plot Device

A woman said to write like a man.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
11,973
Reaction score
1,866
Location
Next to the dirigible docking station
Website
sandwichboardroom.blogspot.com
I have to say that it's not as offensive as some of the remarks made about rape and pregnancy, but it's every bit as stupid.

"We don't anticipate that happening." - what a priceless response to that idiocy.


Here's a close contender.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgKepHebKRc

Please notice the name of the YouTuber who posted this video.

And please also notice that said YouTuber has disabled all comments.
 

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
LOL. Secretary Chu obviously wasn't the one who was puzzled.

What a moron that Joe Barton is.
 

missesdash

You can't sit with us!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
1,092
Location
Paris, France
Dogs are attracted to sugar, if I remember correctly. I'm not quite sure they have desserts big enough to put dogs in, though.

HAHAHAHA I have no idea why I typed dessert? It wasn't even a typo, because I definitely didn't mean desert either.

I swear I had only had one drink when I typed it out. Okay one and a half.
 

lbender

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
1,009
Reaction score
119
Location
Maryland
Dogs are just as susceptible to acetominophen toxicity as other non-human species. And they will eat dead...anything.
:e2bummed:

Not true - especially at the doses they'll use. Acetominophen is actually used to treat dogs. Not a huge risk.

Cats could too. They are even more sensitive to acetaminophen toxicity.

Actually, they are probably more likely to eat the mice. Not that the snakes won't eat them, but they prefer live meals. A lot of snakes won't eat dead prey. I see this turning out very badly.

This is true, though. Doesn't take much Tylenol to kill a cat.
 

SWest

In the garden...
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
23,129
Reaction score
12,525
Location
Where the Moon can see me.
Website
www.etsy.com
Not true - especially at the doses they'll use. Acetaminophen is actually used to treat dogs. Not a huge risk.
...

I've seen acetaminophen toxicosis in dogs many times. Just because there is a therapeutic dosage for a drug does not mean that it is safe under any and all circumstances at any amounts.
 

missesdash

You can't sit with us!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
1,092
Location
Paris, France
I mean I love dogs, a lot, but when choosing between possibly killing some dogs (which obviously aren't a native species) and further damage similar to the extinction of dozens of species of birds, the dogs don't even register as a concern, really.
 

Opty

Banned
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
4,448
Reaction score
918
Location
Canada
I've seen acetaminophen toxicosis in dogs many times. Just because there is a therapeutic dosage for a drug does not mean that it is safe under any and all circumstances at any amounts.

Your comment was nothing more than a strawman. Lbender never stated that acetaminophen was "safe under any and all circumstances." He/she merely pointed out that it's likely not a threat to dogs at the levels in question.

And that doesn't in any way address lbender's rebuttal, which was correcting your factually incorrect assertion that, "Dogs are just as susceptible to acetominophen toxicity as other non-human species." Quite untrue, in fact.

Also, I'd like to point out that if you're going to argue about animal pharmacology, unless you're expertly educated in that area, you're probably not going to know nearly as much about it as a veterinarian like lbender.
 

AncientEagle

Old kid, no need to be gentle.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,090
Reaction score
513
Location
Southern U.S.
I suspect the folks who planned this (over the past 10 years they say) have considered all the possible side effects and think they have a reasonable chance of success. I'd be willing to run a few risks to reduce the incredible infestation of snakes that has decimated other wildlife. As for dogs and cats, not very many of them roam in tropical jungles. At least not for long. I love both species, but would sacrifice a few of those foolhardy enough to go into the jungle, if it meant getting rid of the snakes.

My money is on the airborne mice winning the war.
 

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
I've seen acetaminophen toxicosis in dogs many times. Just because there is a therapeutic dosage for a drug does not mean that it is safe under any and all circumstances at any amounts.

That's true for humans, too.
 

GeorgeK

ever seeking
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
6,577
Reaction score
740
Snakes generally won't eat carrion.
 

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
It depends on the snake. Otherwise, Petco wouldn't be able to sell those bags of frozen "Gourmet Rodents" I've seen there.
 

Rob Lefebvre

Ass kicker
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
169
Reaction score
7
Location
USA
Website
www.throwthediceproductions.com
To be fair people if you put a live animal and a frozen dead animal in a cage I feel confident almost any snake would eat the live animal. Choosing to eat a dead animal and having no choice but to eat a dead animal are two very different things.
 

Chase

It Takes All of Us to End Racism
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
9,239
Reaction score
2,316
Location
Oregon, USA
Instead of the mice paratroopers with modified 101st Airborne t-shirts (Death Dead From Above), I'm thinking the government of Guam could take a page from our great city mayors:

A snake buyback program. $200 per snake, no questions asked.

Like guns bought here, Guam could buy snakes dug up from everywhere and imported in just for the sale.
 

GeorgeK

ever seeking
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
6,577
Reaction score
740
It depends on the snake. Otherwise, Petco wouldn't be able to sell those bags of frozen "Gourmet Rodents" I've seen there.
Those are snakes raised in captivity. Captured wild snakes are known to starve themselves rather tahn eating something that they did not kill.

That's a absolutely wretched study so full of non sequitor that it did not merit publication. They said bait disappeared therefore it must have been snakes eating it. The much more likely scenario was that the bait killed rodents, the snakes had nothing to eat and moved to a new area.
 

Opty

Banned
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
4,448
Reaction score
918
Location
Canada
Threads like this are quite amusing to me. It seems that whenever anything involves the government, the worst intentions and ineptitude are automatically assumed, despite a lack of evidence. This story involves scientists, government intervention, AND animals. Yay! It's a veritable "hat trick" of outragey topics for pseudo-experts to pontificate on!

Everybody knows that scientists are super smart, except when they say educated things based on research and evidence that conflict with our biases, or when they're working for the government. Then they're just incompetent, stupid, and evil.

And who doesn't love animals? AmIright? The government, of course! Because, you know, they're all evil and stupid. It's all so juicy and conspiracyish!

And, wouldn't ya know it, now everyone is suddenly an expert in ecology, biology, pharmacology, and animal behavior and making all kinds of dubiously authoritative statements on subjects with which they likely have little to no expert knowledge.

We have people who are not herpetologists making authoritatively asserted, factual-sounding statements about snake behavior, with no citations, evidence, or disclosed educational background to back them up. We have people trying to tell a veterinarian what is and is not toxic to dogs. We have non-ecologists disparaging scientific efforts to restore a sense of ecological balance to an area, under the assumption (it seems) that the scientists have no idea of what ecological homeostasis is or have given no thought to it whatsoever.

If only the scientists and organizations involved had consulted an internet message board before going off half-cocked on this Keystone Cops-esque misadventure that's sure to end in environmental armageddon.

It takes a special kind of arrogance and illusory superiority for people with little-to-no relevant background in the subject to think not only that they know more about the situation and subject than the scientists involved but also that these scientists haven't considered all of the variables proposed here and very likely many more, haven't ruled out the inapplicable ones, haven't gathered empirical data, and are thoughtlessly racing into this project all willy nilly, with no consideration for the consequences.

Just like there are "Monday morning quarterbacks," I guess there also exist "Monday morning scientists."

This project is an attempt to restore an ecological balance. It cannot create imbalance because the imbalance already exists. Yes, it may have unforeseen consequences, but such is life. Science isn't perfect. Nothing is. But at least they're making a seemingly well-thought-out attempt at doing something. Otherwise, I'm sure we'd all be sitting around criticizing the ecological/biological/etc. consequences of them not intervening.
 
Last edited:

missesdash

You can't sit with us!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
1,092
Location
Paris, France
That's a absolutely wretched study so full of non sequitor that it did not merit publication. They said bait disappeared therefore it must have been snakes eating it. The much more likely scenario was that the bait killed rodents, the snakes had nothing to eat and moved to a new area.

What kind of "rodents"? The bait stations were over a meter in the air and only 10cm thick. Maybe there aren't other animals in the area that would be able to access to it.
 

Tiger

AKA: "Gums of Steel"
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2005
Messages
1,879
Reaction score
487
Location
Honolulu
Snakes generally won't eat carrion.

Snakes don't generally eat cane toads without dying, glide through the air or live in salt water, but there are representatives of the 2700 known species that do.
 

Captcha

Banned
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
4,456
Reaction score
637
Threads like this are quite amusing to me. It seems that whenever anything involves the government, the worst intentions and ineptitude are automatically assumed, despite a lack of evidence. This story involves scientists, government intervention, AND animals. Yay! It's a veritable "hat trick" of outragey topics for pseudo-experts to pontificate on!

I will have you know that I am doing doctoral-level work on festivals related to dead mice! My thesis is tentatively entitled "Dead Rodents: An Improbable Celebration of Life".
 

GeorgeK

ever seeking
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
6,577
Reaction score
740
Threads like this are quite amusing to me. It seems that whenever anything involves the government, the worst intentions and ineptitude are automatically assumed, despite a lack of evidence. This story involves scientists, government intervention, AND animals. Yay! It's a veritable "hat trick" of outragey topics for pseudo-experts to pontificate on!

Everybody knows that scientists are super smart, except when they say educated things based on research and evidence that conflict with our biases, or when they're working for the government. Then they're just incompetent, stupid, and evil.

And who doesn't love animals? AmIright? The government, of course! Because, you know, they're all evil and stupid. It's all so juicy and conspiracyish!

And, wouldn't ya know it, now everyone is suddenly an expert in ecology, biology, pharmacology, and animal behavior and making all kinds of dubiously authoritative statements on subjects with which they likely have little to no expert knowledge.

We have people who are not herpetologists making authoritatively asserted, factual-sounding statements about snake behavior, with no citations, evidence, or disclosed educational background to back them up. We have people trying to tell a veterinarian what is and is not toxic to dogs. We have non-ecologists disparaging scientific efforts to restore a sense of ecological balance to an area, under the assumption (it seems) that the scientists have no idea of what ecological homeostasis is or have given no thought to it whatsoever.

If only the scientists and organizations involved had consulted an internet message board before going off half-cocked on this Keystone Cops-esque misadventure that's sure to end in environmental armageddon.

It takes a special kind of arrogance and illusory superiority for people with little-to-no relevant background in the subject to think not only that they know more about the situation and subject than the scientists involved but also that these scientists haven't considered all of the variables proposed here and very likely many more, haven't ruled out the inapplicable ones, haven't gathered empirical data, and are thoughtlessly racing into this project all willy nilly, with no consideration for the consequences.

Just like there are "Monday morning quarterbacks," I guess there also exist "Monday morning scientists."

This project is an attempt to restore an ecological balance. It cannot create imbalance because the imbalance already exists. Yes, it may have unforeseen consequences, but such is life. Science isn't perfect. Nothing is. But at least they're making a seemingly well-thought-out attempt at doing something. Otherwise, I'm sure we'd all be sitting around criticizing the ecological/biological/etc. consequences of them not intervening.
I'm a physician and surgeon, and farmer of the green variety. My wife's graduate degree is in Animal Behavior. She teaches at the local college. Several of the professors she works with are herpetrologists and at least one veterinarian. You almost never get a unanimous opinion from a room full of people with doctoral degrees. Everyone agrees that bait traps are highly unlikely to reach their target and this plan is most likely going to wind up killing unforseen species long before the snakes and if it ultimately works will be because of a scorched earth policy. This is such a mindblowingly stupid idea that I don't need a citation. I think the many years of doctoral work that my group of friends have done is sufficient. Scientists can be bought and government does that all the time. The results are foregone conclusions and if the theses don't match what the individual dispensing the grant wants, they don't get the grant. That's why Bush could say that mountain top removal had no significant ecologic impact. Like it or not, that's the way the system works. That's why most of us want third party studies. We don't trust the Pfizer study that says, "Take our pill." and we don't trust government studies that insist snakes will eat carrion, something that is virtually unbelievable in the wild.

Yes the system is out of balance, but that doesn't mean that this plan is better than nothing. Look what happened when Australia imported tularemia to deal with the rabbit population. They killed off the tazmanian wolf. Pick up any college level ecology text and this plan will shout, "Don't do it!"

What kind of "rodents"? The bait stations were over a meter in the air and only 10cm thick. Maybe there aren't other animals in the area that would be able to access to it.
I've seen very determined mice, rats and other little furry critters get into all sorts of things.

Snakes don't generally eat cane toads without dying, glide through the air or live in salt water, but there are representatives of the 2700 known species that do.
Could this one be an exception? Theoretically but they should have studied that first because the likelihood is very very low.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
It takes a special kind of arrogance and illusory superiority for people with little-to-no relevant background in the subject to think not only that they know more about the situation and subject than the scientists involved but also that these scientists haven't considered all of the variables proposed here and very likely many more, haven't ruled out the inapplicable ones, haven't gathered empirical data, and are thoughtlessly racing into this project all willy nilly, with no consideration for the consequences.
Nope, all it takes is an awareness of chaos theory, familiarity with the concepts of unintended consequences and Bastiat's broken window, and a passing knowledge of the complexity and interdependence of any ecological system.

Oh, and a bit of historical knowledge of man's efforts to "manage" the ecology, such as the never-ending story of Yellowstone National Park.

This will not end well.
 

missesdash

You can't sit with us!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
1,092
Location
Paris, France
I really don't think there's any question as to whether or not brown tree snakes will eat dead mice.
http://www.berrymaninstitute.org/journal/fall2012/p._212-221_Clark_Aerial.pdf

Brown treesnakes in the wild readily accept dead mice as food across all locations and seasons (Shivik and Clark 1997, 1999)

Of 80 telemetered baits aerially deployed, 30 (38%) baits were taken by snakes, one was taken by a toad (Bufo marinus), and one was taken by a monitor lizard (Varanus indicus). Mortality was observed in all 30 cases of bait-take by the snakes.

They do eat carrion.

ETA: and more on how they know who took the bait

The first measure of efficacy consisted of placing radio transmitters (Model F1620, Advanced Telemetry Systems, Isanti, Minn.) in AMBs (n = 20/drop, or 10% of the total deployment), and tracking the fate of those baits in the days following the bait drop. Immediately after the AMB drop, and at 24-and 48-hour intervals, the baits were geo-located, and their positions were marked with flagging. This activity allowed an assessment of the rate of bait acceptance by targets (brown treesnakes) and nontargets (other animals), movement of animals that ingested bait, and their fate. All carcasses and unconsumed baits with transmitters were recovered after 48 hours.

<snip>

Based on 1,000 hours of video analysis, acceptance of bait from PVC tubes was almost exclusively due to brown treesnakes (L. Clark, U.S. Department of Agriculture, personal observation). The tubes were hung about 1.5 m high in vegetation and placed at 20-m intervals, with 62 tubes on the treatment area transect, 12 tubes per transect on transects R1 to R4, and 20 tubes per transect on transects IR1 to IR4. UMBs were placed in all tubes at the beginning of the study (day 0). Every 2 days thereafter, all PVC tubes were checked for presence or absence of UMBs (Figure 2). At that time, new UMBs were placed in all tubes, and old UMBs were removed. The exception to this schedule occurred during the AMB drop when no UMBs were placed in any PVC tubes (Figure 2). This was done to preclude interference in access and uptake of the AMB.
 
Last edited: